Under-Enrollment in Proposition 36

The Prop 36 Courtroom has no adversarial counsel, since the DA’s office removed its representative in 2009, leaving only the Judge and the Public Defender to work with representatives of the Prop 36 program. (FA-04)

From the time an offender walks out of the Prop 36 Courtroom until treatment begins, many obstacles exist: long waiting lists for fewer affordable outpatient treatment centers; transportation difficulties; and heavy financial burdens on the enrollees. (FA-07, FA-09, and FA-10)

Most treatment programs are on an outpatient basis because they are less expensive, but they often lack consistency and continuity, thus contributing to a higher dropout rate. (FA-03 and FA-10)

If the offender has financial means, self-payment for an inpatient treatment facility is the best option. Presently, this enables those who are better off financially to have the best chance at rehabilitation. Prop 36 was designed to provide funds for successful treatment to all offenders who met the enrollment criteria, irrespective of financial means. (FA-03, FA-07, and FA-10)

The BOS has worked with both the VCBHD and the VCPA to find alternative sources of funding. (FA-02 and FA-08) 4 Under-Enrollment in Proposition 36 Recommendations

According to a long-term UCLA study researching Prop 36 since its inception, there was a $2.50 savings to State and local governments for every dollar spent on Prop 36 treatment. However, savings were mostly seen in prisons and jails that did not have to incarcerate this population. These savings did not go toward treatment programs. [Ref-03]

In 2008, UCLA released its last statement to the press on the Prop 36 study, noting that “. . . . Prop 36 . . . is being undermined by inadequate funding, participants dropping out of treatment, and increased arrests for drug and property crimes. The good news, however, is that the initiative has saved taxpayers millions of dollars. . . . Several promising new programs have the potential to improve Prop 36’s results, and violent crime arrests have decreased more in California than nationally since the proposition’s implementation.” [Ref-07]

Prop 36 is currently operating on a federal stimulus grant, along with additional funds from the Drug and Alcohol Division of the VCBHD. The grant was due to expire in March 2011. However, due to the Under-Enrollment in Proposition 36 3 commitment of the VCBHD and the VCPA, current funding will be extended through September 2011.

The VCBHD and the VCPA work in tandem both in and out of the Prop 36 Courtroom to assess and qualify offenders for enrollment in the Prop 36 program. The VCBHD assists in the determination of financial need and provides substance abuse treatment. The VCPA supervises offenders on probation.

There are two types of treatment within the VCBHD treatment program for Prop 36. The first is outpatient treatment, which often has long waiting lists due to a reduced number of affordable treatment sites. In the past there were other treatment centers operated by private contractors, but some were discontinued when funding diminished. Most offenders now utilize the few County- sponsored facilities. The resulting delay in treatment may contribute to increased dropout rates. The second is inpatient treatment, which, while more expensive than outpatient treatment, tends to double the chances of successful recovery. According to the UCLA report, only 11% of statewide offenders were enrolled in more costly, yet more effective, inpatient treatment. [Ref-03] Findings